Tuesday, 28 April 2015

29 April 2015

A sage
observation from St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, over 1600 years ago continues to
shape many of our patterns of behaviour today. It was he who observed wryly
that “When I am in Rome, I tend to do as the Romans do”. He could not have
imagined the ongoing significance that casual remark would assume, especially
in the world of international diplomacy.

The latest
example of this practice at work was the decision by the wife of the Prime
Minister to wear the traditional loose-fitting anabaya robes, but not a head
scarf, during the visit to Saudi Arabia this week. There are arguments for and
against doing so – Michelle Obama famously refused to comply during a recent
Presidential visit – but, generally speaking, the law of “when in Rome” seems
to apply. (Indeed, any Arabic delegation I have met in New Zealand has usually
turned up in the most exquisitely cut Amani suits!)

Actually, more
important than abiding by whatever the appropriate dress code is considered to
be, are the discussions that take place during such visits. In the current
case, New Zealand is keen to conclude the long-awaited Free Trade Agreement
with the Gulf Co-operation Council states, of which Saudi Arabia is the leading
member. The balancing act for the Prime Minister was whether he was prepared to
pull his punches on Saudi Arabia’s utterly appalling human rights record,
particularly with regard to women, and its heavy reliance on decapitation,
whipping and mutilation in its justice system.

Over the years,
New Zealand, despite its proven record in human rights, has not always been up
to the mark when it comes to expressing horror at the barbaric practices of others.
We implicitly condoned apartheid South Africa right through until the mid
1980s; we have long been tongue-tied when it comes to China’s human rights
record; and, we seem set to do likewise with Saudi Arabia.

However,
frustrating and humiliating as that can be, we could never be accused of
playing international bully. Yet it is difficult to escape applying that
description to Australia’s handling of the recent Bali Nine ringleaders’ executions.
While nothing excuses the barbarism of Indonesia’s actions, the various
interventions by Australia – Foreign Minister Julie Bishop notably excepted –
all served to make it virtually impossible for Indonesia to get off its high
horse with any semblance of dignity. From the crass linking of Australian aid
after the Boxing Day tsunami to favourable consideration of this case, through
to independent commentary in Australia on the eve of the executions that the actions
of President Widodo actually showed his political impotence, Australia appeared
hell-bent on humiliating Indonesia into submission, rather than saving the
lives of its two citizens.

There is a lesson
here for New Zealand. A New Zealander is currently on trial for his life on
drugs charges in Indonesia, and potentially faces the fate as Chan and
Sukumaran. We need to be talking quietly to the Indonesians now, letting them know
our views, and working with them to see if a reasonable solution can be
effected. The process needs to be ongoing, not just left until the last few
months.

As recent events
show, preserving the human rights of a country’s citizens can be a far more
delicate form of observing St Ambrose’s principle of “When in Rome’ than just
abiding by the local dress code.